Antitrust monitor rebuts Apple accusations of 'unconstitutional' investigation
Court-appointed antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich filed a declaration on Monday saying Apple has been very uncooperative compared to his past monitorships, rebuking the company's actions thus far and denying claims of "a broad and amorphous inquisition."
In an 11-page document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bromwich, who is tasked with overseeing Apple's e-book pricing activities as a result of a Department of Justice price-fixing trial, detailed his experience with Apple's legal team, executives, board members and even the public.
Bromwich starts out with a brief background on his appointment to the Apple case, including previous experience in three separate corporate and government monitoring assignments. He points to these repeatedly throughout the declaration, which was filed along with numerous emails from Apple's representation and senior executives.
Describing the preceding two months, Bromwich offers multiple examples of what he considers to be an unwillingness on Apple's part to facilitate a smooth operation.
Backed up with emails from Apple's senior director for competition law and policy Kyle Andeer, the monitor notes multiple instances in which repeated interview requests with board members and senior executives were rebuffed. Bromwich said he has "never waited as long as a month" for such meetings.
According to Bromwich, Andeer said Apple was concerned with allowing interviews as executives were upset over the court's ruling and would "never get over the case," expressing that the monitor and his team would see that "a lot of anger" still existed within the company.
So far, Apple has granted interviews with 11 people for a combined total of 13 hours. Of the interviewees, only one was a requested board member, while seven were lawyers rather than "business people." In addition, Bromwich questions Apple's insistence on conducting interviews at a satellite location in Sunnyvale, Calif., and not the company's Cupertino headquarters.
Further, the monitor complains that requested materials have not been provided in a timely or satisfactory manner. Apple's general counsel and senior vice president of legal and government affairs Bruce Sewell described the task as calling for "voluminous historical documents," of which 303 pages have been provided. Bromwich said the production is an incomplete response to his request.
Bromwich also profiled public blowback which came in the form of profane emails after Apple called the monitor's handling of the situation "unconstitutional," labeling it as a "broad and amorphous inquisition."
Bromwich's filing comes on the same day as plaintiffs' filed their opposition to Apple's motion to stay the investigation pending appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote's ruling. In that filing, the DOJ and states attorneys general move to deny the stay citing public interest in preventing further antitrust violations that could be conducted by an unmonitored Apple.
Apple has been at odds with Bromwich since the former Justice Department Inspector General's assignment, saying the monitor is overstepping his bounds by making unreasonable requests while requiring $138,000 for two-weeks' worth of work.
As for the future of the e-book price fixing case, Apple is appealing the ruling and Judge Cote is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the injunction stay on Jan. 13, 2014.
Bromwich's declaration embedded below:
In an 11-page document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bromwich, who is tasked with overseeing Apple's e-book pricing activities as a result of a Department of Justice price-fixing trial, detailed his experience with Apple's legal team, executives, board members and even the public.
Bromwich starts out with a brief background on his appointment to the Apple case, including previous experience in three separate corporate and government monitoring assignments. He points to these repeatedly throughout the declaration, which was filed along with numerous emails from Apple's representation and senior executives.
Describing the preceding two months, Bromwich offers multiple examples of what he considers to be an unwillingness on Apple's part to facilitate a smooth operation.
Backed up with emails from Apple's senior director for competition law and policy Kyle Andeer, the monitor notes multiple instances in which repeated interview requests with board members and senior executives were rebuffed. Bromwich said he has "never waited as long as a month" for such meetings.
According to Bromwich, Andeer said Apple was concerned with allowing interviews as executives were upset over the court's ruling and would "never get over the case," expressing that the monitor and his team would see that "a lot of anger" still existed within the company.
So far, Apple has granted interviews with 11 people for a combined total of 13 hours. Of the interviewees, only one was a requested board member, while seven were lawyers rather than "business people." In addition, Bromwich questions Apple's insistence on conducting interviews at a satellite location in Sunnyvale, Calif., and not the company's Cupertino headquarters.
"This is far less access than I have ever received during a comparable period of time in the three other monitorships I have conducted." - Michael Bromwich"This is far less access than I have ever received during a comparable period of time in the three other monitorships I have conducted," Bromwich writes.
Further, the monitor complains that requested materials have not been provided in a timely or satisfactory manner. Apple's general counsel and senior vice president of legal and government affairs Bruce Sewell described the task as calling for "voluminous historical documents," of which 303 pages have been provided. Bromwich said the production is an incomplete response to his request.
Bromwich also profiled public blowback which came in the form of profane emails after Apple called the monitor's handling of the situation "unconstitutional," labeling it as a "broad and amorphous inquisition."
Bromwich's filing comes on the same day as plaintiffs' filed their opposition to Apple's motion to stay the investigation pending appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote's ruling. In that filing, the DOJ and states attorneys general move to deny the stay citing public interest in preventing further antitrust violations that could be conducted by an unmonitored Apple.
Apple has been at odds with Bromwich since the former Justice Department Inspector General's assignment, saying the monitor is overstepping his bounds by making unreasonable requests while requiring $138,000 for two-weeks' worth of work.
As for the future of the e-book price fixing case, Apple is appealing the ruling and Judge Cote is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the injunction stay on Jan. 13, 2014.
Bromwich's declaration embedded below:
Comments
He is dealing with criminals
Troll bait. I suggest we ignore it.
This man is on a fishing expedition, IMHO.
Also, there's a broken link in the last paragraph. Should go here:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/04/apple-appeals-verdict-punishment-in-e-book-antitrust-case
The only crime being committed here is charging $138K for two weeks of work.
This guy is fighting hard for his easy money, kind of sad but then what do you expect form a tool.
Bromwich is clearly over his head and charging far too much money for his "services", since he's unable to get the access he says he wants.
The only crime being committed here is charging $138K for two weeks of work.
What work? he's accomplished diddly.
Any meeting with Michael Bromwich needs to be videotaped. This will prove that he is investigating and monitoring way past his purview.
AppleInsider needs to stop using that stock photo of Ben Bernanke. /s
Unlike other companies, the executives at Apple actually work and do meaningful things that impact our world. Lawyers like this guy is just a leach. Yes, they should be angry. I wish Steve Jobs were still there to curse him out and make him cry like a little girl... EVERY. DAY.
Maybe he'd like some Stevia from Walter White.
Hell hath no fury like an Apple fan scorned. How is it Apple's fault that he's receiving irate emails from members of the public?
Reminds me of a jazilllion lawyer jokes.
It was so cold today I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
What's the difference between a lawyer and God?
God doesn't think he's a lawyer.
What do you get when you cross a lawyer and a pig?
Won't happen -- there are some things even a pig won't do.
What is the difference between a leech and a lawyer?
The leech stops sucking you dry after you're dead.
How come you can't find lawyers sunbathing on the beach?
Cats keep covering them over with sand.
What do you call a lawyer who has gone bad?
Senator.
A guy phones a law firm and says, "I want to speak to my lawyer." The receptionist says, "I'm sorry, but your lawyer died last week."
The next day the same guy phones the law firm and says, "I want to speak to my lawyer." Once again the receptionist replies, "I'm sorry, but your lawyer died last week."
The next day the guy makes his regular call to the law firm and say, "I want to speak to my lawyer." "Excuse me sir," the receptionist says, "but this is third time I've had to tell you that your lawyer died last week. Why do you keep calling?"
The guy replies, "Because I love hearing it!"
Things like that, you know; meaningful things that impact our world.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Maybe he'd like some Stevia from Walter White.
Hell hath no fury like an Apple fan scorned.
How is it Apple's fault that he's receiving irate emails from members of the public?
Reminds me of a jazilllion lawyer jokes.
What's the difference between a lawyer and God?
God doesn't think he's a lawyer.
How come you can't find lawyers sunbathing on the beach?
Cats keep covering them over with sand.
Q: What do you call a lawyer who has gone bad?
A: Senator.
A doctor notices a sidewalk stand that says 'brains for sale.'
He goes over to investigate and sees a sign that says 'Doctor brains $8.00 a pound’ and another sign that says ‘Paramedic brains $12.00 a pound, Nurses brains $30.00 a pound, truck driver $40.00 a pound and lawyers brains $90.00 a pound.’
So he asks the man behind the cashregister, “how come his brains are only worth 8.00 and a lawyer's worth 90.00?”
The man replies, “do you know how many lawyers it takes to make a pound of brains?”
A guy phones a law firm and says, "I want to speak to my lawyer." The receptionist says, "I'm sorry, but your lawyer died last week."
The next day the same guy phones the law firm and says, "I want to speak to my lawyer." Once again the receptionist replies, "I'm sorry, but your lawyer died last week."
The next day the guy makes his regular call to the law firm and say, "I want to speak to my lawyer." "Excuse me sir," the receptionist says, "but this is third time I've had to tell you that your lawyer died last week. Why do you keep calling?"
The guy replies, "Because I love hearing it!"
Did you just edit out a bunch of lawyer jokes?
I just wanted to quote your "~~Hell hath no fury like an Apple fan scorned" line. That really made me chuckle! Instead I got a bunch of lawyer jokes!
But if he's sticking his nose places it doesn't below, denying employees legal rights etc then it deserves to be uncovered and shut down. Even if it means going to the top. So of course Apple isn't going to back down since that is how they feel.
I can't blame them really. I still don't buy this crap that they were being anti trust when the judge kept saying everything is actually totally legal tactics and places like Amazon where never questioned. Or the need for this monitor or his being allowed to hire lawyers and force apple to pay for them because he knows zero about anti trust law. Or that it is legit for a judge to try a case and pass a judgment publicly before the official trial has begun and then cherry pick things to back up her view. It all just reeks and while I certainly wouldn't mind some industry wide changes in all digital media etc to benefit consumers I want to see it done to all not just one company because they are the top dogs.
Oh and as for his claims that no other company was this nasty to him. They just didn't have the balls. Or likely the bank.
AppleInsider needs to stop using that stock photo of Ben Bernanke. /s
Arh....... No wonder why. I have always thought the two look extremely similar.
Then Why AI decide to use a photo that has absolutely no relation to the article?
The whole trial and outcome stunk to high heaven.
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/36744/width/200/height/400[/IMG]